• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ranchers.net

I watched part of this hearing- and it was great watching Dorgan tear the DOTs lawyer apart-- and questioning how one young attorney could arrogantly rule that he knew more than the Congressional staff attorneys that drew up the law- the Congress that passed the law and make a ruling on the basis of how he interprets one word- and in doing so possibly endanger US citizens....
But as Dorgan commented- GW doesn't let the law stand in the way of arrogantly doing anything he wants to- even when Congress overwhelmingly bipartisanly voted to cut funding for this more Mexicanization of America project......
As was pointed out in the hearings by the Inspector General- these Mexican truckers not only don't have to meet the requirements of the US/Canadian truckers- but don't even have to know how to speak or read English..... :shock:

Senator rails against DOT for 'arrogance,' disrespect of Congress

By Kevin Jones
The Trucker Staff

3/11/2008


WASHINGTON — Repeatedly comparing the implementation of a cross-border trucking plan to the sanctioning of torture, a U.S. Senator took the Bush administration to task Tuesday — emphasizing “there will be consequences” for defying the will of Congress.



“I would say we don’t want to make a federal case out of this, but that’s why we’re here. The fact is, the U.S. Congress passes appropriation bills, we fund the Department of Transportation, and we fully expect the DOT comply with the funding requirements,” Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said, early-on in a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.



Other than a brief discussion of a recently released DOT Inspector General’s report, the nearly two-hour session featured little new information about the trucking component of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but multiple accusations by Dorgan of bureaucratic arrogance and disrespect for Congress by the DOT.



At issue is the DOT’s continuation of a test plan to open the U.S.-Mexico border to long-haul trucking, despite several legislative moves to close the gate.



Introducing Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, Dorgan said he had supported her nomination to the post, but “I now regret it.”



“I think there’s an arrogance here with respect to federal agencies, not just yours, but there would not be a hearing if the DOT had complied with congressional intent,” Dorgan said.



Dorgan emphasized the issue at hand wasn’t about NAFTA or relations between the U.S. and Mexico but about safety differences in long-haul trucking in the two countries.



“You can certify one truck, you can certify one company, you can certify 10 or 100 and inspect every nut and bolt and every gasket, but that still does not justify a decision that suggests there is some sort of equivalency with respect to safety standards between Mexican trucking and American trucking. That does not exist,” said Dorgan.



Peters, in her statement and testimony, defended the DOT’s decision to go forward, emphasizing that the program meets previously set congressional standards to ensure safety, and that the program benefits U.S. trucking by guaranteeing long-haul opportunities south of the border.



As for the DOT’s decision to continue the program — despite an approved and signed appropriation package containing language to deny funding for the “establishment” of such a program — General Counsel D.J. Gribbin explained the DOT’s legal argument that a “plain language” interpretation of the law refers only to future projects.



“You know better than that,” Dorgan countered, calling the argument a “creative way to read a word.”



Dorgan quoted comments by the staff who drafted the law, an interpretation which supported an intent to halt the program. He referred as well as to initial reactions from Senate opponents of the law and that of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Administrator John Hill — all pointing, according to Dorgan, to an awareness that Congress clearly meant to shut down the cross-border program.



The DOT, however, stuck by the position it has argued since the law was passed six months ago. Gribbin also explained that no government agency could act in a way contrary to a law as it is written, regardless the perception of intent.



“I’ve been involved in a fair number of close calls on ‘what does this word mean?’ and I don’t think this is even a close call,” Gribbin said, referring to court decisions dating to the 1800s. He also noted courts have been “highly dismissive” of “post-enactment communication” meant to clarify a challenged interpretation.



“But I go back to my point. This is not a hearing in which we’re having a couple of lawyers debate a word,” Dorgan replied. “I think there’s an arrogance here that is all too common in this administration. The arrogance of saying ‘we’ve found a way to deal with this.’ They found a way to deal with torture, in fact. Just a write a memo and say that torture is fine. Write a memo and say that cross-border trucking is fine despite the fact Congress said you can’t use money for that purpose.”



Pressed repeatedly by Dorgan as to what conversations, if any, she’d had with the White House regarding the program, Peters said she specifically discussed with the Office of Legislative Affairs “the U.S. commitment to fulfill international obligations under the NAFTA trade agreement.”



“Based on the interpretation of the law not requiring that we shut the program down, I made the decision not to shut the program down,” Peters said of her role.



In dismissing Peters from the hearing, Dorgan again criticized the DOT for looking for “room to slither through the side” and ignore Congress.



“There are too many examples of this to add more,” Dorgan said, encouraging Peters to consult the White House and reconsider the cross-border program. “It angers me even more, having had this discussion because I believe that government works when people of good faith are doing what they believe to be right.”



Even as Peters insisted the DOT was acting on the belief that it was right, and that there was no disrespect for Congress intended, Dorgan continued.



“There are too many examples in this administration, starting at the White House down through the Department of Justice and to the agencies with respect to torture and a dozen other issues when this administration has decided what the Congress has done matters little to them, and this appears to be one of them, regrettably,”
he said.



In closing remarks, returning to his promise of consequences for defiance of Congress, Dorgan noted that appropriations would be coming up, and that he is “an appropriator” who would “dig some spurs into this issue.”



“The secretary and her legal counsel will not have the last word,” he concluded. “The United States Congress will have the last word.”



In other questioning, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) asked for an explanation as to how Trinity Industries, a Mexico-based carrier with hundreds of recorded safety violations, received program approval.



Peters explained the carrier had withdrawn from the program, and that many of the violations were for equipment never meant to be used in the long-haul operations — but ultimately characterized the carrier as “an anomaly” in the review process that otherwise showed the approved Mexico-based carriers had better safety records than the U.S. commercial vehicle fleet.



Dorgan requested that the Inspector General look into the matter.



Also, Paul Cullen, legal counsel for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association — whose pending court case to halt the program also calls into question the safety record of program participants — told Dorgan that the truckers’ group wasn’t simply looking out for its membership’s commercial interests.



“There is a direct line relationship between profitability and adequate compensation and safety,” Cullen said, referring to the ramifications for American drivers forced to compete with less expensive Mexico-based trucks and drivers.
Top